Examination of Racial Disparity in Competency to Stand Trial Between White and African American Retarded Defendants

Ho, Taiping

doi:10.1177/002193479902900602

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple studies have found opinion differences based on defendants' language (Ramos-González et al, 2016;Varela et al, 2011), immigration status (Cabeldue et al, 2021;Crocker et al, 2002), ethnic background (McCallum et al, 2015Nicholson & Kugler, 1991;Rogers et al, 1988), or gender (Crocker et al, 2002;Dirks-Linhorst et al, 2019;Rogers et al, 1988). However, several other studies have found no statistical differences (Cooper & Zapf, 2003;Ho, 1999;Kois et al, 2013;Paradis et al, 2016;Pirelli et al, 2011). These results might differ because some studies did not assess for intersectionality.…”

Section: Awareness Of Areas Of Possible Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

Bergkamp¹,

McIntyre²,

Hauser³

2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: State of Washington v. Sisouvanh (2012) was the first case in which an appellate court asserted the need for cultural competence in competency-to-stand-trial evaluations. A court reiterated this need in State of Washington v. Ortiz-Abrego (2017). Research in forensic psychology seldom addressed cultural considerations in pretrial evaluations until this past decade, but the growing body of literature pales in comparison to the work found in clinical and counseling psychology. Most of the current literature acknowledges the lack of professionally sanctioned practice guidelines and makes valuable suggestions regarding how to address cultural factors that are relevant to the requisite capacities of legal competency. Yet, none of this research addresses potential risks incurred by the evaluators who attempt to incorporate these suggestions into practice or acknowledges the possible incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles. Hypotheses: The authors posit there may be areas of incompatability, or tension, between the tenets of forensic psychology and cultural competency. Method: To examine this potential incompatibility, we reviewed legal cases with cultural implications, addressed recent developments regarding cultural "incompetence," and conducted an overview of cultural competency in clinical and forensic psychology. Results: Comparing general principles of forensic psychology with those of cultural responsiveness and humility, we found that questions emerged regarding the potential philosophical conflicts as well as risks that may be incurred by individual evaluators in legal settings. Conclusions: The resultant dilemma sets the stage for pragmatic suggestions regarding communication, assessment, and diagnosis. Finally, we emphasize the need for sanctioned practice guidelines. Public Significance StatementThe field of forensic psychology must reconcile the potential incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles to better support forensic professionals in their practice. We encourage practitioners to utilize existing methods and tools to integrate cultural factors, and we call on professional organizations involved in forensic psychology to assist in clarifying how to operationalize social responsiveness within the field.

show abstract

Section: Awareness Of Areas Of Possible Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

Bergkamp¹,

McIntyre²,

Hauser³

2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One additional report (Ho, 1999) examined potential racial disparity in competence findings between White and African-American defendants with mental retardation. Participants in this study all had been found incompetent due (at least in part) to mental retardation and were committed to a special state program to facilitate development of competence abilities.…”

Section: Defendants With Mental Retardationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five year research update (1996–2000): evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence)

Fogel

Schiffman

Mumley

et al. 2003

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 1996-2000 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial (also known as adjudicative competence). The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) the systemic context of evaluations of adjudicative competence (AC); (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations; (iii) research on AC assessment methods; (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities; (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports; (vi) interpretation of AC evaluation data; (vii) issues in AC assessment of special populations (e.g., juveniles, persons with mental retardation, and women); and (viii) treatment to restore competence. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.

show abstract

“…Research shows mental retardation to be a robust predictor of competency to stand trial. In a study of mentally retarded individuals, Ho (1999) found that only 23.6% were adjudicated competent to stand trial; this finding was based upon data collected after the individuals had participated in a hospitalbased competency education program during their restoration periods. Pierrel (1986;as cited in Grisso, 1992) reported that, of individuals with IQ scores less than 60 (i.e., moderate mental retardation), all were deemed incompetent to stand trial.…”

Section: Clinical Variables Literature Regarding the Relation Betweementioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting restoration of competence to stand trial: Demographic, clinical, and legal variables

Thomas¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. Each year, a considerable number of defendants are referred for competency to stand trial evaluation. Of those judged incompetent to stand trial, a majority are regarded as having a significant likelihood of being restored to competency. While a majority of individuals are restored to competency after restoration treatment, others are deemed incompetent to stand trial and non-restorable. For individuals deemed non-restorable, a protracted stay in a forensic-psychiatric hospital or less-restrictive placement is the norm. This often lengthy period of inpatient commitment expends a great amount of staff and monetary resources. Rationale. In order that scarce monetary and staff resources be saved, early identification of individuals likely to be found incompetent and non-restorable is essential. Presently, minimal research has examined predictors of restoration to competence. Methodology. Retrospective chart review was used to collect demographic, clinical, and legal data from a sample of 80 men courtordered to inpatient competency restoration at a state-funded forensic-psychiatric facility. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the relations of these variables with final restoration status (i.e., restored to competency or incompetent and non-restorable). Results. Results of univariate analyses indicated that a history of outpatient treatment and performance on the Assessment of Depression Inventory (ADI) Reliability scale differentiated individuals found restored to competence from those found incompetent to stand trial and non-restorable (IST-NR). Patients who had previous outpatient psychological treatment were more likely to be restored to competence than found IST-NR. Patients who did not exhibit elevated ADI reliability scale scores were more often deemed competent than IST-NR. Those who exhibited elevated scores on the scale were more often found IST-NR than restored to competence. Logistic regression analysis indicated that patients without a history of outpatient treatment were more likely found IST-NR than restored to competence. Discussion. Results suggest history of outpatient treatment and reliability of responding to psychological tests are possible discriminators of likelihood of restoration to competence. Limitations of this study include small sample size, lack of power, and homogeneity of the study sample. This study suggests two variables as important for future replication in research. It is further suggested that past research be replicated and extended in an effort to develop a model of predicting those likely to be found IST-NR, which can be used in applied settings. iii Table of Contents iv List of Tables v Predicting Restoration of Competence to Stand Trial: Demographic, Clinical, and Legal Variables For a forensic psychologist, one of the most commonly received requests is for evaluation of competence to stand trial (CST; Gothard, Rogers, & Sewell, 1995). CST evaluation and restoration interventions is said to be more costly than any other class of f...

show abstract

Examination of Racial Disparity in Competency to Stand Trial Between White and African American Retarded Defendants

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

Five year research update (1996–2000): evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence)

Predicting restoration of competence to stand trial: Demographic, clinical, and legal variables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About